WHO lamenting about terminology? [Regulatives / Guidelines]

posted by d_labes  – Berlin, Germany, 2020-12-07 14:35 (47 d 22:49 ago) – Posting: # 22124
Views: 564

Dear Helmut,

» Coming back to the WHO’s rant:

The calculation of the 90% confidence interval (CI) of the mean test/comparator ratio for the primary PK parameters should not be confused with the two one-sided t-tests employed to reject the null hypothesis of non-equivalence. The end result is the same, but these are not the same calculations.


» IMHO, they are just fed up reading “TOST” whilst the CI inclusion approach acc. to the GL was actually performed.

Totally correct to lament about that fact, I think. It should unequivocally described in the protocol or the SAP which calculations will be done :yes:. The CI approach will be the favorite I think. It is requested in all guidelines about BE studies, if I dont err.

Regards,

Detlew

Complete thread:

Activity
 Admin contact
21,310 posts in 4,445 threads, 1,489 registered users;
online 3 (0 registered, 3 guests [including 2 identified bots]).
Forum time: Sunday 13:25 UTC (Europe/Vienna)

Every man gets a narrower and narrower field of knowledge
in which he must be an expert in order to compete with other people.
The specialist knows more and more about less and less
and finally knows everything about nothing.    Konrad Lorenz

The Bioequivalence and Bioavailability Forum is hosted by
BEBAC Ing. Helmut Schütz
HTML5